ABSTRACT Domestic ducks are the second most abundant poultry species in many Asian countries including Vietnam, and play a critical role in the epizootiology of H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) [FAO]. In this study, we examined the protective efficacy in ducks of two commercial H5N1 vaccines widely used in Vietnam; Re-1 containing A/goose/Guangdong/1/1996 hemagglutinin (HA) clade 0 antigens, and Re-5 containing A/duck/Anhui/1/2006 HA clade 2.3.4 antigens. Ducks received two doses of either vaccine at 7 and at 14 or 21 days of age followed by challenge at 30 days of age with viruses belonging to the HA clades 1.1, 2.3.4.3, 2.3.2.1.A and 2.3.2.1.B isolated between 2008 and 2011 in Vietnam. Ducks vaccinated with the Re-1 vaccine were protected after infection with the two H5N1 HPAI viruses isolated in 2008 (HA clades 1.1 and 2.3.4.3) showing no mortality and limited virus shedding. The Re-1 and Re-5 vaccines conferred 90-100% protection against mortality after challenge with the 2010 H5N1 HPAI viruses (HA clade 2.3.2.1.A); but vaccinated ducks shed virus for more than 7 days after challenge. Similarly, the Re-1 and Re-5 vaccines only showed partial protection against the 2011 H5N1 HPAI viruses (HA clade 2.3.2.1.A and 2.3.2.1.B), with a high proportion of vaccinated ducks shedding virus for more than 10 days. Furthermore, 50% mortality was observed in ducks vaccinated with Re-1 and challenged with the 2.3.2.1.B virus. The HA proteins of the 2011 challenge viruses had the greatest number of amino acid differences from the two vaccines as compared to the viruses from 2008 and 2009, which correlates with the lesser protection observed with these viruses. These studies demonstrate the suboptimal protection conferred by the Re-1 and Re-5 commercial vaccines in ducks against H5N1 HPAI clade 2.3.2.1 viruses, and underscore the importance of monitoring vaccine efficacy in the control of H5N1 HPAI in ducks.

[Show abstract][Hide abstract]ABSTRACT:
Based on hemagglutinin (HA) and neuraminidase (NA), influenza A virus is divided into 18 different HA (H1 to H18) and 11 NA types (N1 to N11), opening the possibility for reassortment between the HA and NA genes to generate new HxNy subtypes (where x could be any HA and y is any NA, possibly). In recent four years, since 2010, highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) viruses of H5N1 subtype (HPAI A/H5N1) have become highly enzootic and dynamically evolved to form multiple H5 HA clades, particularly in China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Egypt, Cambodia, and Bangladesh. So far, after more than 10 years emerged in Vietnam (since late 2003), HPAI A/H5N1 is still posing a potential risk of causing outbreaks in poultry, with high frequency of annual endemics. Intragenic variation (referred to as antigenic drift) in HA (e.g., H5) has given rise to form numerous clades, typically marking the major timelines of the evolutionary status and vaccine application in each period. The dominance of genetically and antigenically diversified clade 2.3.2.1 (of subgroups a, b, c), clade 1.1 (1.1.1/1.1.2) and re-emergence of clade 7.1/7.2 at present, has urged Vietnam to the need for dynamically applied antigenicity-matching vaccines, i.e., the plan of importing Re-6 vaccine for use in 2014, in parallel use of Re-1/Re-5 since 2006. In this review, we summarize evolutionary features of HPAI A/H5N1 viruses and clade formation during recent 10 years (2004-2014). Dynamic of vaccine implementation in Vienam is also remarked.

07/2014; 3(2):117-27. DOI:10.7774/cevr.2014.3.2.117

This article is viewable in ResearchGate's enriched format

RG Format enables you to read in context with side-by-side
figures, citations, and feedback from experts in your field.

[Show abstract][Hide abstract]ABSTRACT:
Although little has changed in vaccine technology for avian influenza virus (AIV) in the past 20 years, the approach to vaccination of poultry (chickens, turkeys and ducks) for avian influenza has evolved as highly pathogenic AIV has become endemic in several regions of the world. Vaccination for low pathogenicity AIV is also becoming routine in regions where there is a high level of field challenge. In contrast, some countries will not use vaccination at all and some will only use it on an emergency basis during eradication efforts (i.e. stamping-out). There are pros and cons to each approach and, since every outbreak situation is different, no one method will work equally well in all situations. Numerous practical aspects must be considered when developing an AIV control program with vaccination as a component, such as: (1) the goals of vaccination must be defined; (2) the population to be vaccinated must be clearly identified; (3) there must be a plan to obtain and administer good quality vaccine in a timely manner and to achieve adequate coverage with the available resources; (4) risk factors for vaccine failure should be mitigated as much as possible; and, most importantly, (5) biosecurity must be maintained as much as possible, if not enhanced, during the vaccination period.

Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed.
The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual
current impact factor.
Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence
agreement may be applicable.